The only thing one can conclusively deduce from that study is that every person involved (the researchers, the supervising professors, the people who vetted the professor, the peer-reviewers, etc) are scientifically illiterate.

Unfortunately, terrible methodological quality and utter lack of scientific scrutiny and academic rigour is the rule, rather than the exception, in the sports science field.

Pretty poor and biased article using a study, from 1994, that have some interesting yet not conclusive findings. Most studies are quite poor. Even well done RCT studies have to be contextualized and give guidelines rather than truths.

Best practice is always a summarizing of clinical experience, scientifical evidence, individual patient/client response and your own judgement.

Pretty poor and biased article using a study, from 1994, that have some interesting yet not conclusive findings. Most studies are quite poor. Even well done RCT studies have to be contextualized and give guidelines rather than truths.

Best practice is always a summarizing of clinical experience, scientifical evidence, individual patient/client response and your own judgement.

Click to expand...

Also relatively untrained/weak population. The idea that weak people gain max acceleration from strength training compared to strong people is not exactly revolutionary. If we used collegiate Div 1 athletes with 4-8 years of weightlifting, I would be not surprised to see the group using throws/speed work improve more.

Also relatively untrained/weak population. The idea that weak people gain max acceleration from strength training compared to strong people is not exactly revolutionary. If we used collegiate Div 1 athletes with 4-8 years of weightlifting, I would be not surprised to see the group using throws/speed work improve more.

Click to expand...

Yeah I didn't want to go into the specifics of it, but small sample size, untrained/weak individuals, young age, exercise selection, exercise protocol and conflicting evidence from other citations, included in the discussion in the study, means it definitely should be viewed in context.

It just tells us that these few young kids who had never lifted weights before got a slight improvement in their pitching speed compared to a med ball group. However the whole point of the med ball group, theoretically, was to improve the SSC reflex, improve contractile velocity and motor patterns. If they didn't do the exercises correctly (too slow, too heavy or too light resistance), didn't choose the right exercises (little carryover, too unspecific to the task you're trying to improve) then even something that might have worked, and have in other studies, wouldn't.

Add to that, that they were untrained as you touched on. If they already had a decent base of strength, or were simply older, the results might have looked different as well. And so on.

Yeah I didn't want to go into the specifics of it, but small sample size, untrained/weak individuals, young age, exercise selection, exercise protocol and conflicting evidence from other citations, included in the discussion in the study, means it definitely should be viewed in context.

It just tells us that these few young kids who had never lifted weights before got a slight improvement in their pitching speed compared to a med ball group. However the whole point of the med ball group, theoretically, was to improve the SSC reflex, improve contractile velocity and motor patterns. If they didn't do the exercises correctly (too slow, too heavy or too light resistance), didn't choose the right exercises (little carryover, too unspecific to the task you're trying to improve) then even something that might have worked, and have in other studies, wouldn't.

Add to that, that they were untrained as you touched on. If they already had a decent base of strength, or were simply older, the results might have looked different as well. And so on.

Click to expand...

For the untrained, weak athlete he absolutely needs strength training before any highly specialized plyometric work...unfortunately not many "S&C" coaches working with 12-18 year olds realize that. I personally thought it was just common sense haha

Ill try lol. Not looking for anything specific Im just curious if anyones ever looked into abilities or limitations when there is nerve damage/disabilities.

Got interested because two people at my gym both live with some but their performance is crazy different. One has some damage to his legs, basically no calf muscles, and the other is an amputee (above knee). The amputee makes progress and is imo impressively strong. The other guy really works his ass off and does all the right things but hes been stalled on strength PRs for a long time. In good shape but doesnt seem to be able to get more on the bar.

(Before anyone asks, no hes not lazy or making excuses, lacking calories or programming.)

Ill try lol. Not looking for anything specific Im just curious if anyones ever looked into abilities or limitations when there is nerve damage/disabilities.

Got interested because two people at my gym both live with some but their performance is crazy different. One has some damage to his legs, basically no calf muscles, and the other is an amputee (above knee). The amputee makes progress and is imo impressively strong. The other guy really works his ass off and does all the right things but hes been stalled on strength PRs for a long time. In good shape but doesnt seem to be able to get more on the bar.

(Before anyone asks, no hes not lazy or making excuses, lacking calories or programming.)

Click to expand...

So what you are asking is if nerve damage at a specific location can reduce your strength adaptions in other areas of the body? There's a bit to unpack there.

When it comes to localised nerve damage, it's related to individual nerves and would most likely only effect a specific area or muscle(s). I'm sure there would be some sort of interplay with other nerves that might impact strength adaptions in other areas negatively, but it's not completely understood. The majority of the symptoms would be localised. The relationship between nerve damage and strength loss is pretty clearly defined. This study is really interesting in that regard:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4375416/

Peripheral damage can be systemic as well though, like in diabetes with or without polyneuropathologies (basicly just means that many nerves are effected) as a result of something like arteroschlerosis (plaque in the arties resulting in less oxygenated nerve fibers and hence damage) throughout the body, or in various other conditions like Multiple Schlerosis.

Otherwise if the muscle weakness is systemic or distributed over different sections of the body it's usually a problem in the CNS, primarily the brain. Brain damage can impact many muscles in accordance to which part of the mortor cortex that's damaged. Also other neurological diseases in the brain can cause loss of strength more systematically.

So, to answer your question. There's no reason why the guy who had his leg amputated would experience any significant strength loss in other areas of his body if the reason was stricly something localised in that leg, which is now removed. Then again It might effect the interplay as a disruption in muscle co-ordination could decrease expression of strength. He probably has some imbalances and compensations, but he should be able to improve.

The guy who has basicly no calf muscles (I assume it's bilateral?), you'd want to know what his diagnosis is, but if it's an active nerve pathology that effects both his lower limbs then it'd make sense that he might not progress as fast in his lower body. Strength training can still be used to not regress though and as preventive measure. If he's also experiencing less muscle strength in the upper body and you are asking if that's related, then I'd say it might be to some degree, but that it could be other factors as well. It depends on what the actual cause is, ie his diagnosis, but it could just be something else geneticly which is limiting him.

So what you are asking is if nerve damage at a specific location can reduce your strength adaptions in other areas of the body? There's a bit to unpack there.

When it comes to localised nerve damage, it's related to individual nerves and would most likely only effect a specific area or muscle(s). I'm sure there would be some sort of interplay with other nerves that might impact strength adaptions in other areas negatively, but it's not completely understood. The majority of the symptoms would be localised. The relationship between nerve damage and strength loss is pretty clearly defined. This study is really interesting in that regard:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4375416/

Peripheral damage can be systemic as well though, like in diabetes with or without polyneuropathologies (basicly just means that many nerves are effected) as a result of something like arteroschlerosis (plaque in the arties resulting in less oxygenated nerve fibers and hence damage) throughout the body, or in various other conditions like Multiple Schlerosis.

Otherwise if the muscle weakness is systemic or distributed over different sections of the body it's usually a problem in the CNS, primarily the brain. Brain damage can impact many muscles in accordance to which part of the mortor cortex that's damaged. Also other neurological diseases in the brain can cause loss of strength more systematically.

So, to answer your question. There's no reason why the guy who had his leg amputated would experience any significant strength loss in other areas of his body if the reason was stricly something localised in that leg, which is now removed. Then again It might effect the interplay as a disruption in muscle co-ordination could decrease expression of strength. He probably has some imbalances and compensations, but he should be able to improve.

The guy who has basicly no calf muscles (I assume it's bilateral?), you'd want to know what his diagnosis is, but if it's an active nerve pathology that effects both his lower limbs then it'd make sense that he might not progress as fast in his lower body. Strength training can still be used to not regress though and as preventive measure. If he's also experiencing less muscle strength in the upper body and you are asking if that's related, then I'd say it might be to some degree, but that it could be other factors as well. It depends on what the actual cause is, ie his diagnosis, but it could just be something else geneticly which is limiting him.

Just about wrapping up my education as a physiotherapist, with most of my interest being in biomechanics, physiology and neurology. I'm writing my bachelors in brain trauma in a few month and then I think I'll get a masters in human physiology or neuroscience, and probably a PhD down the road too. I'll wait a few years because I want to work and get some experience first, but I'm really excited about learning more and growing!